Protected risk stratification with the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator: results from the WEARIT-II-EUROPE registry

Cost-Utility Analysis of LifeVest® in Post-Myocardial Infarction Patients at Risk of Sudden Cardiac Death in England

BACKGROUND

Patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35% are at increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) within the first months after a myocardial infarction (MI). The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is an established, safe and effective solution which can protect patients from SCD during the first months after an MI, when the risk of SCD is at its peak. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of WCD combined with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) compared to GDMT alone, after MI in the English National Health Service (NHS).

METHODS

A multi-state Markov model, with a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, was developed to evaluate WCD + GDMT compared with GDMT alone, over a lifetime time horizon. Model input parameters were obtained from the pivotal randomised controlled trial and literature. The outcomes were costs and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), discounted at 3.5% annually, with overall results presented as an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).

RESULTS

The cost-effectiveness analysis demonstrated that WCD + GDMT is potentially a cost-effective option with an ICER of £23,024 per QALY gained, which is in the acceptable willingness to pay threshold (WTP) range of £20,000-£30,000 set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in England. Results of probabilistic sensitivity analysis (PSA) indicated that WCD + GDMT has 89.3% and 23% probability of being cost-effective at WTP thresholds of £30,000 and £20,000, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of WCD in patients post-MI is potentially a cost-effective use of resources for the NHS and improves clinical outcomes amongst adherent patients and in circumstances where implantable cardioverter defibrillators are not indicated by the guidelines.

Therapy duration and improvement of ventricular function in de novo heart failure: the Heart Failure Optimization study

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

In patients with de novo heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is expected to occur when started on guideline-recommended medical therapy. However, improvement may not be completed within 90 days.

METHODS

Patients with HFrEF and LVEF ≤ 35% prescribed a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator between 2017 and 2022 from 68 sites were enrolled, starting with a registry phase for 3 months and followed by a study phase up to 1 year. The primary endpoints were LVEF improvement > 35% between Days 90 and 180 following guideline-recommended medical therapy initiation and the percentage of target dose reached at Days 90 and 180.

RESULTS

A total of 598 patients with de novo HFrEF [59 years (interquartile range 51-68), 27% female] entered the study phase. During the first 180 days, a significant increase in dosage of beta-blockers, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists was observed (P < .001). At Day 90, 46% [95% confidence interval (CI) 41%-50%] of study phase patients had LVEF improvement > 35%; 46% (95% CI 40%-52%) of those with persistently low LVEF at Day 90 had LVEF improvement > 35% by Day 180, increasing the total rate of improvement > 35% to 68% (95% CI 63%-72%). In 392 patients followed for 360 days, improvement > 35% was observed in 77% (95% CI 72%-81%) of the patients. Until Day 90, sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmias were observed in 24 wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers (1.8%). After 90 days, no sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia occurred in wearable cardioverter-defibrillator carriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Continuous optimization of guideline-recommended medical therapy for at least 180 days in HFrEF is associated with additional LVEF improvement > 35%, allowing for better decision-making regarding preventive implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy.

Sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended heart rate control among a large sample of patients at risk for sudden cardiac arrest

Background

Despite known clinical benefits, guideline-recommended heart rate (HR) control is not achieved for a significant proportion of patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction. The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) provides continuous HR monitoring and alerts that could aid medication titration.

Objective

This study sought to evaluate sex differences in achieving guideline-recommended HR control during a period of WCD use.

Methods

Data from patients fitted with a WCD from 2015 to 2018 were obtained from the manufacturer's database (ZOLL). The proportion of patients with adequate nighttime resting HR control at the beginning of use (BOU) and at the end of use (EOU) were compared by sex. Adequate HR control was defined as having a nighttime median HR <70 beats/min.

Results

A total of 21,440 women and a comparative sample of 17,328 men (median 90 [IQR 59-116] days of WCD wear) were included in the final dataset. Among patients who did not receive a shock, over half had insufficient HR control at BOU (59% of women, 53% of men). Although the proportion of patients with resting HR ≥70 beats/min improved by EOU, 43% of women and 36% of men did not achieve guideline-recommended HR control.

Conclusion

A significant proportion of women and men did not achieve adequate HR control during a period of medical therapy optimization. Compared with men, a greater proportion of women receiving WCD shocks had insufficiently controlled HR in the week preceding ventricular tachyarrhythmia/ventricular fibrillation and 43% of nonshocked women, compared with 36% of men, did not reach adequate HR control during the study period. The WCD can be utilized as a remote monitoring tool to record HR and inform adequate uptitration of beta-blockers, with particular focus on reducing the treatment gap in women.

[History of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in Germany]

The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) was a breakthrough in the prevention of sudden cardiac death. After years of technical development in the USA, Michel Mirowski succeeded in proving reliable automatic defibrillation of ventricular tachyarrhythmias through initial human implantations in 1980, despite many obstacles. Nearly 4 years later, the first patients received ICDs at multiple centers in Germany. Subsequently, outside the USA, Germany became the country with highest implantation rates. The absolute number of implantations remained small as long as implantations required epicardial defibrillation electrodes and therefore thoracotomy by cardiac surgeons. Pacemaker-like implantation using a transvenous defibrillation electrode with a pectoral ICD became feasible in the early 1990s pushing implantation rates to the next level. Technical advancements were accompanied by clinical research in Germany, and often, the first-in-human studies were conducted in Germany. In 1991, the first guidelines for indications were established in the USA and Germany. Several randomized studies on indications were published between 1996 and 2009, mostly led by American teams with German participation, but also under German leadership (CASH, CAT, DINAMIT, IRIS). The DANISH study in 2016 questioned the results of these long-standing studies. Instead of providing ICDs to patients using a broad indication, future efforts aim to identify patients who, despite optimal medical therapy, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and/or catheter ablation, need protection against sudden cardiac death. Risk scores incorporating myocardial scars in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and genetic information are expected to contribute to more individualized and effective indications.

Use of the Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Among Patients With Myocarditis and Reduced Ejection Fraction or Ventricular Tachyarrhythmia: Data From a Multicenter Registry

Background Data on the use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) among patients with myocarditis remain sparse. Consequently, evidence for guideline recommendations in this patient population is lacking. Methods and Results In total, 1596 consecutive patients were included in a multicenter registry from 8 European centers, with 124 patients (8%) having received the WCD due to myocarditis and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction or prior ventricular tachyarrhythmia. The mean age was 51.6±16.3 years, with 74% being male. Patients were discharged after index hospitalization on heart failure medication: Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (62.5%), angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitor (22.9%), aldosterone-antagonists (51%), or beta blockers (91.4%). The initial median left ventricular ejection fraction was 30% (22%-45%) and increased to 48% (39%-55%) over long-term follow-up (P<0.001). The median BNP (brain natriuretic peptide) level at baseline was 1702 pg/mL (565-3748) and decreased to 188 pg/mL (26-348) over long-term follow-up (P=0.022). The mean wear time was 79.7±52.1 days and 21.0±4.9 hours per day. Arrhythmic event rates documented by the WCD were 9.7% for nonsustained ventricular tachycardia, 6.5% for sustained ventricular tachycardia, and 0% for ventricular fibrillation. Subsequently, 2.4% of patients experienced an appropriate WCD shock. The rate of inappropriate WCD shocks was 0.8%. All 3 patients with appropriate WCD shock had experienced ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation before WCD prescription, with only 1 patient showing a left ventricular ejection fraction <35%. Conclusions Patients with myocarditis and risk for occurrence of ventricular tachyarrhythmia may benefit from WCD use. Prior ventricular arrhythmia might appear as a better risk predictor than a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction <35% in this population.

ANMCO position paper: guide to the appropriate use of the wearable cardioverter defibrillator in clinical practice for patients at high transient risk of sudden cardiac death

Extended risk stratification and optimal management of patients with a permanently increased risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) are becoming increasingly important. There are several clinical conditions where the risk of arrhythmic death is present albeit only transient. As an example, patients with depressed left ventricular function have a high risk of SCD that may be only transient if there will be a significant recovery of function. It is important to protect the patients while receiving and titrating to the optimal dose the recommended drugs that may lead to an improved left ventricular function. In several other conditions, a transient risk of SCD can be observed even if the left ventricular function is not compromised. Examples are patients with acute myocarditis, during the diagnostic work-up of some arrhythmic conditions or after extraction of infected catheters while eradicating the associated infection. In all these conditions, it is important to offer a protection to these patients. The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is of particular importance as a temporary non-invasive technology for both arrhythmia monitoring and therapy in patients with increased risk of SCD. Previous studies have shown the WCD to be an effective and safe therapy for the prevention of SCD caused by ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation. The aim of this ANMCO position paper is to provide a recommendation for clinical utilization of the WCD in Italy, based upon current data and international guidelines. In this document, we will review the WCD functionality, indications, clinical evidence, and guideline recommendations. Finally, a recommendation for the utilization of the WCD in routine clinical practice will be presented, in order to provide physicians with a practical guidance for SCD risk stratification in patients who may benefit from this device.

Wearable cardioverter defibrillator for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients at risk: An updated systematic review of comparative effectiveness and safety

Objectives

To synthesise the available evidence of wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) therapy as an add-on measure to optimal medical therapy (OMT) or as a replacement of hospital stay.

Methods

An update systematic review (SR) of comparative effectiveness and safety of WCD therapy was conducted. We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), prospective comparative studies and prospective uncontrolled studies with at least 100 patients. A narrative synthesis of the evidence was conducted.

Results

One RCT (n = 2348) and further eleven observational studies (n = 5345) fulfilled our inclusion criteria. In the only available RCT, the use of the WCD was not statistically associated with a clinical benefit on arrhythmic mortality in post-myocardial infarction (MI) patients with an ejection fraction of ≤35%. The compliance with WCD therapy was low in the RCT and high in observational studies, with ten observational studies reporting on a daily wear time between 20 and 23.5 h. The range of percentage of patients receiving at least one appropriate shock was 1-4.8% and the rate of first shock success was reported to be 100% in three studies. Serious adverse events (SAEs) such as inappropriate shocks occurred rarely, with between 0% and 2% of patients being inappropriately shocked within ten observational studies. In one of the observational studies, two patients (2%) were allergic to nickel developing skin rash and false alarms occurred in 58 patients (57%) in this study. Another registry study (n = 448) reported milder AEs, such as dermatitis and pressure marks, occurring in 0.9% and 0.2% of enrolled patients, respectively.

Conclusion

The only available RCT failed to show superiority of add-on use of WCD in post MI patients. Observational evidence shows that the compliance with WCD is good, but the evidence is afflicted with selection bias and the inclusion of diverse mixed patient populations diluting the ability to draw indication-specific conclusions on the utility of the device. More comparative data is needed to justify continuing or expanding use of WCD therapy.

ECG as a risk stratification tool in patients with wearable cardioverter-defibrillator

BACKGROUND

The wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) is increasingly used in patients at elevated risk for ventricular arrhythmias but not fulfilling the indications for an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Currently, there is an insufficient risk prediction of fatal arrhythmias in patients at risk. In this study, we assessed the prognostic role of baseline electrocardiogram (ECG) in WCD patients.

METHODS

WCD patients from diverse clinical institutions in Germany (n = 227) were retrospectively enrolled and investigated for the incidences of death or ventricular arrhythmias during WCD wearing. In addition, the widely accepted ECG predictors of adverse outcome were analyzed in patients with arrhythmic events.

RESULTS

Life-threatening arrhythmias occurred in 22 (9.7 %) patients, mostly in subjects with ischemic heart disease (15 of 22). There was no difference in baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in subjects with and without arrhythmic events (31.3 ± 7.9 % vs. 32.6 ± 8.3 %; p = 0,24). Patients with arrhythmia exhibited significantly longer QRS duration (109.5 ± 23.1 ms vs. 100.6 ± 22.3 ms, p = 0,04), Tpeak-Tend (Tp-e) (103.1 ± 15.6 ms vs. 93.2 ± 19.2 ms, p = 0,01) and QTc (475.0 ± 60.0 ms vs. 429.6 ± 59.4 ms, p < 0,001) intervals. In contrast, no significant differences were found for incidences of fragmented QRS (27.3 % vs. 24 %, p = 0.79) and inverted/biphasic T-waves (16.6 % vs. 22.7 %, p = 0,55). In multivariate regression analysis both Tp-e (HR 1.03; 95 % CI 1.001-1.057; p = 0.02) and QTc (HR 1.02; 95 % CI 1.006-1.026; p < 0.001) were identified as independent predictors of ventricular arrhythmias. After WCD use, the prophylactic ICD was indicated in 76 patients (33 %) with uneventful clinical course but persistent LVEF ≤35 %. The ECG analysis in these subjects did not reveal any relevant changes in arrhythmogenesis markers.

CONCLUSIONS

ECG repolarization markers Tp-e and QTc are associated with malignant arrhythmias in WCD patients and may be used - in addition to other established risk markers - to identify appropriate patients for ICD implantation.

Usage of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator during pregnancy

Background

Pregnancy can trigger or aggravate the risk for life-threating arrhythmias in cardiac diseases. Pregnancy is associated with reluctance for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) due to concerns about radiation. Thus, the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) might be an option during pregnancy. Aim of the study was to collect experiences about the use of WCD in pregnancy.

Methods and results

This study retrospectively included eight women who received a WCD during pregnancy. They suffered from ventricular tachycardia (VT) without known cardiac disease (n = 3), Brugada syndrome (n = 1), hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (n = 1), dilated cardiomyopathy (n = 1), non-compaction (n = 1), and survived sudden cardiac arrest during a preceding pregnancy (n = 1). WCD usage was started between 13 and 28 weeks of gestation. WCD wearing period ranged from 3 days to 30.9 weeks, WCD wearing time ranged from 13.0 to 23.7 h per day. Two women (25%) abandoned WCD already during pregnancy. Neither appropriate nor inappropriate WCD shocks were recorded. Antiarrhythmic management included beta-blockers (n = 5) and flecainide (n = 2). After delivery, ICD were implanted (n = 4), refused (n = 2) and estimated not necessary after successful catheter ablation (n = 2).

Conclusion

Uneventful pregnancy is possible in women at risk for sudden cardiac death by interdisciplinary monitoring and diligent pharmacotherapy protected by the WCD. Since no WCD shocks were recorded, the effectiveness of WCD during pregnancy is still unclear. However, arrhythmia detection by WCD was very good despite the changed anatomy in pregnancy. Nevertheless, further studies are necessary to assess effectiveness of WCD in pregnant women. Furthermore, efforts should be made to increase the wearing adherence of WCD during pregnancy.

When is a wearable defibrillator indicated?

INTRODUCTION

Wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is a novel tool that may be of interest in situations with atransient risk of sudden cardiac death. It offers a temporary and easy to remove protection against malignant ventricular arrhythmias. In this review, the authors describe evidence in literature and different international guidelines and consensus.

AREAS COVERED

The authors searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials, and Google Scholar for relevant studies and comments.

EXPERT OPINION

If a WCD is indicated, the observance must be as perfect as possible. Thus, patients need proper education in wearing the WCD.The temporary use of a WCD is reasonable in patients with a high risk for SCD, even with a low level of evidence with only one randomized clinical trial (VEST), as its disadvantages are limited to a transitory impairment in quality of life and a low risk of inappropriate shock.Indications are now well accepted: ischemic cardiomyopathy with LVEF below 35% before reassessment, recent onset of NICM or presumed myocarditis with LVEF ≤35% before reassessment, after ICD explant until reimplantation (e.g. infection), and bridge to transplant.Future guidelines on WCD in the prevention of SCD may be warranted to harmonize clinical practice especially in debated indications..

Feasibility and First Results of Heart Failure Monitoring Using the Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator in Newly Diagnosed Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

The wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is used in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In addition to arrhythmic events, the WCD provides near-continuous telemetric heart failure monitoring. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical relevance of additionally recorded parameters, such as heart rate or step count. We included patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF prescribed with a WCD. Via the WCD, step count and heart rate were acquired, and an approximate for heart rate variability (HRV5) was calculated. Multivariate analysis was performed to analyze predictors for an improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Two hundred and seventy-six patients (31.9% female) were included. Mean LVEF was 25.3 ± 8.5%. Between the first and last seven days of usage, median heart rate fell significantly (p < 0.001), while median step count and HRV5 significantly increased (p < 0.001). In a multivariate analysis, a delta of HRV5 > 23 ms was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement of ≥10% between prescription and 3-month follow-up. Patients with newly diagnosed HFrEF showed significant changes in heart rate, step count, and HRV5 between the beginning and end of WCD prescription time. HRV5 was an independent predictor for LVEF improvement and could serve as an early indicator of treatment response.

Wearable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Used as a Telemonitoring System in a Real-Life Heart Failure Unit Setting

BACKGROUND

In patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who are at risk of sudden cardiac death, a wearable cardioverter-defibrillator (WCD) is recommended as a bridge to the recovery of LVEF or as a bridge to the implantation of a device. In addition to its function to detect and treat malignant arrhythmia, WCD can be used via an online platform as a telemonitoring system to supervise patients' physical activity, compliance, and heart rate.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 173 patients with regard to compliance and heart rate after discharge.

RESULTS

Mean WCD wearing time was 59.75 ± 35.6 days; the daily wearing time was 21.19 ± 4.65 h. We found significant differences concerning the patients' compliance. Men showed less compliance than women, and younger patients showed less compliance than patients who were older. Furthermore, we analyzed the heart rate from discharge until the end of WCD prescription and found a significant decrease from discharge to 4, 8, or 12 weeks.

CONCLUSION

WCD can be used as a telemonitoring system to help the involved heart failure unit or physicians attend to and adjust the medical therapy. Furthermore, specific patient groups should be educated more intensively with respect to compliance.

Smart Wearables for Cardiac Monitoring-Real-World Use beyond Atrial Fibrillation

The possibilities and implementation of wearable cardiac monitoring beyond atrial fibrillation are increasing continuously. This review focuses on the real-world use and evolution of these devices for other arrhythmias, cardiovascular diseases and some of their risk factors beyond atrial fibrillation. The management of nonatrial fibrillation arrhythmias represents a broad field of wearable technologies in cardiology using Holter, event recorder, electrocardiogram (ECG) patches, wristbands and textiles. Implementation in other patient cohorts, such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), heart failure or sleep apnea, is feasible and expanding. In addition to appropriate accuracy, clinical studies must address the validation of clinical pathways including the appropriate device and clinical decisions resulting from the surrogate assessed.